Behavioral Pathologies of past, and modern mind-sets

**Awaken4e1** · 12-09-2005 07:55 AM

There are five or six pathological responses in social behavior, which I now present as metaphors, for those who are the Scribes of the day, applied in the time of Christ, which is still applicable for today's mind-set.

The Sadducee -

So, Sad - You - See...

One uses one’s own self-made sophistication, to weed out error and superstition from "what really matters." Often they use violent behavior in dealing with those who disagree with them, forcibly (either with physical or verbal violence) reacting to the "superstitious, or religious." It is pathological in that the person who is a modernist, i.e. a “Sadducee" derives their sense of identity from mocking the crowd and being "too smart" for whatever is the traditional approach.

Scribes -

One who takes a legalistic approach with overwhelming rules, and regulations? (Used to belittle, and judge others). They pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin and omit the weightier matters of the law: fairness, mercy and faith. (Matthew 23:23). It is pathological in that it derives a sense of identity from condemning others for failing to meet irrational legalisms (straining at gnats and swallowing camels).

There is a sense of entitlement that comes purely from the modern scribe having embraced the fad or values of the past and a demand for respect, and honor based purely on having embraced (with a great deal of legalism) a past fad.

Note: Often a discord becomes a conflict when there are scribes on one side and Sadducees, which is often needed to validate the Sadducee.

Zealots

The true Zealot is marked by feeling that every disagreement or conflict can and should be solved by force. Generally, by force first and other, slower, methods second. Zealots are often addicted to the adrenaline high that their actions promote and they enjoy violence.

This pathology is found in every group from the extreme right to the extreme left and every place in between. From street crime and purse snatching to military adventurism, it is the entitlement to results because of the possession of physical force that marks a zealot. Many groups will have zealots forming a significant section of their members. They are brut beasts.

Harlots

These people who live in worldly realm, seeking its pleasures without sufficient limits, and are often victimized or exploited by others (slaves). This behavior becomes pathological when it focuses on instant gratification without regard to externalities give me, and give me now. The mother selling her baby's food for cocaine is an excellent example.

'But I need it' is a good by-line for this group. Often individuals with one of the other pathologies will insist that they have the right to harm, exploit or abuse a member of this group because of the membership in this group ' I have the right because I am strongest'. 'The Pack' mentality.

Publicans

These are those who instead of attempting to assimilate or cooperate with others, seek only to assimilate things. In the most common form, the pattern is pathological in that money is seen has having rights over people and in imbuing one with rights (e.g. "it is only a little girl" he said, as he drove over a child in the road, "and this is such a big car").
Whenever you see, hear or grasp the logic "I'm entitled to do this to xyz group because I have or will make money" you have met a publican in action.

Note: If you see zealots as pathological aggressive negotiators and publicans as pathological cooperatives, you've caught a good grasp of the publican problem.

Essences

The Essences is opposed to its own existence can be used to typify those who run away as a conflict resolution strategy. Survivalists and utopian collectives (for the right and the left) catch this minor group well. Generally the problems erupt when the group is unable to truly run away (e.g. the Montana Freemen -- any where they went they still had to pay taxes, etc.). Most groups will contain a number of Essences.

The real point of having a "Essences." group is to point out that while there are major pathologies that turn up over and over and over again, there are also many that do not fit inside the box or in the groups. Unlike the negotiation styles, social pathologies are much more likely to spread beyond the five major classifications.

Conclusion:

Social pathologies - include group distortions of the basic coping mechanisms, expressed in types of negotiating.

The Rev.

**kimpossible** · 12-10-2005 06:46 AM

I wish you wouldn't make it so easy. . .

**Awaken4e1** · 12-10-2005 06:55 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible
I wish you wouldn't make it so easy. . .

'In what way does you're reply, apply to my post?'

And where is the 'pride' revealed in what I have posted?

P.S. I know from whom my achievements come, and I hold nothing as gain of myself, but only from Him alone.

P.P.S. can you declare the same for all to see? If not then I would determine you're reply is for yourself.

The Rev.

**kimpossible** · 12-10-2005 07:06 AM

I don't subscribe to the sin bullshit - so it's not applicable to me. I take great pride in MY accomplishments. And personal responsibility for my failings.

Your bio, by definition, is prideful.

How does it apply? Simple, really. Simple enough you'll even get there if you try really really hard.

Hint: Read the last line in the picture.

P.P.S. : It's P.P.S., not "P.S.S." Although I did get a giggle from that. "Post Script Script" [snicker]

P.P.P.S : "If not then I would determent you're reply "
Please look up the word "determent" and "you're". Stop trying to use words you clearly don't grasp the definition of. And please please - stop using any form of contraction. You are not responsible enough to use them. You just make yourself look even more the fool. And the prideful fool at that.

**Awaken4e1** · 12-10-2005 07:25 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible
I don't subscribe to the sin bullshit - so it's not applicable to me. I take great pride in MY accomplishments. And personal responsibility for my failings.

Your bio, by definition, is prideful.

How does it apply? Simple, really. Simple enough you'll even get there if you try really really hard.

Still judging the whole of a person by their spelling, and grammar? One would really think that your PhD would be of better use?

My Bio is factual

what does your testing of my spelling, and grammar, have to with my post, and, what does it have to do with your pathological determenations?

Still having trouble staying on task?

As to you not subscribe to sin, does not effect the 'fact' that you do 'sin', and that you will be held accountable for it.

**kimpossible** · 12-10-2005 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

Still judging the whole of a person by their spelling, and grammar? One would really think that your PhD would be of better use?

My Bio is factual

what does your testing of my spelling, and grammar, have to with my post, and, what does it have to do with your pathological determenations?

Still having trouble staying on task?

As to you not subscribe to sin, does not effect the 'fact' that you do 'sin', and that you will be held accountable for it.

Please try to stay with us. I can appreciate that reading comprehension and even simple attention-span are both dire issues for you, but please do try:

Your bio, by definition, is prideful.

Which is a sin.

You initial post is casting proverbial stones. Yet, your christ says that unless you are without sin, you should go around hucking rocks. Or more simply: \"people in glass houses shouldn't play golf\"

Can I possibly make it any clearer without ordering a brain transplant for you?

Originally posted by Kim Possible

How does it apply? Simple, really. Simple enough you'll even get there if you try really really hard.

Hint: Read the last line in the picture

**Awaken4e1** · 12-10-2005 08:24 AM

You initial post is casting proverbial stones. Yet, your christ says that unless you are without sin, you should go around hucking rocks. Or more simply: \"people in glass houses shouldn't play golf\"[/b]

These are only observation of behaviors, no one was named...

But as I wrote, I knew you would be the first to post your spewings, because of your personal
veiw of me, and at of yourself respectively.

Still living up to your own self described superfluous importance?

O' P.S I am without sin...

The Rev.

**Belisarius** · 12-11-2005 05:11 AM

The biggest pathology of the past, and modern mind sets is religion, specifically Christianity.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Rev!

**kimpossible** · 12-11-2005 10:05 AM

Pride is a deadly sin.

Your bio is prideful.

So you can not be without sin.

So you're lying to compound the sin of pride.

Sucks to be you.

**Awaken4e1** · 12-12-2005 06:47 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible
Pride is a deadly sin.

Your bio is prideful.

So you can not be without sin.

So you're lying to compound the sin of pride.

Sucks to be you.

Still unable to reply with substance (k)impossible?

Still resulting in insults, which is evidence of a weak mind. So what is you PhD in (let me guess grammar)?

**Placebo** · 12-12-2005 11:02 AM

Please keep the finger pointing and accusations to yourselves

This has the potential of getting out of hand (if it hasn't already)

PS: This is addressed to everyone at large

**Awaken4e1** · 12-12-2005 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
Please keep the finger pointing and accusations to yourselves
This has the potential of getting out of hand (if it hasn't already)

PS: This is addressed to everyone at large

So, where are you when it is being directed at others?, all of the time...

**Placebo** · 12-12-2005 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
So, where are you when it is being directed at others?, all of the time...

At the request of many, I've been slacking a little and turning a blind eye to a lot. It has nothing to do with picking the threads to respond to and there are other moderators on this site believe it or not.

I'm sure as hell not going to beat myself up about missing some of the threads that you think need attention. If you have a problem with a thread, the PM facility is right there. Use it. No need to whine about my choices in moderation when you have the power to SPEAK to me whenever you have a problem.

**Awaken4e1** · 12-13-2005 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Placebo

At the request of many, I've been slacking a little and turning a blind eye to a lot. It has nothing to do with picking the threads to respond to and there are other moderators on this site believe it or not.

I'm sure as hell not going to beat myself up about missing some of the threads that you think need attention. If you have a problem with a thread, the PM facility is right there. Use it. No need to whine about my choices in moderation when you have the power to SPEAK to me whenever you have a problem.

Just observing selective chastening...but not whining about it...

**Placebo** · 12-13-2005 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Just observing selective chastening...but not whining about it...

There is nothing selective about

PS: This is addressed to everyone at large [/b]

I said that for a reason. I'm not picking on any particular person. I don't have pet members.

Anyway, we should get back on topic I suppose.

**Seeker** · 12-13-2005 03:07 AM

Folks, you have strayed from the unpleasantness called the Religion & Philosophy Forum and decided to post in a regular forum. Please play nicely, all rules of engagement are in affect in the Philosophy forum. I stand behind Placebo 100%, he and our other moderators will maintain order and do not play favorites. They take action as they become aware of issues.

**kimpossible** · 12-13-2005 03:34 AM

I *strongly* object to this thread being in Philosophy. It specifically makes multiple references to the bible and therefore belongs in "religion" per IceDawg's stickeys.

**Seeker** · 12-13-2005 05:02 AM

Where are the biblical references? Point them out and I will move this. I've found references to old Judhism, but that is all

**Awaken4e1** · 12-13-2005 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Placebo

I said that for a reason. I'm not picking on any particular person. I don't have pet members.

Anyway, we should get back on topic I suppose.

**kimpossible** · 12-14-2005 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Seeker
Where are the biblical references? Point them out and I will move this. I've found references to old Judhism, but that is all

Awaken writes: > fairness, mercy and faith. (Matthew 23:23).

Ref: King James Version (KJV) Matthew - Chapter 23

"Mat. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

This is about as specifically a biblical reference as you can get, is it not?

Thanks, Seeker!

**Awaken4e1** · 12-14-2005 05:49 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible

Awaken writes: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.\"

Shouldn't your previous post be applied to your own post?

**Seeker** · 12-14-2005 05:51 PM

OK, I'm moving this thread. However, the main reason I am moving it is not because of Awakens biblical reference, but because this thread has been hijacked and turned into essentially a platform for you guys to attack each other.

I was lamenting the other day to the moderators. Once upon a time at dreamviews, an atheist, buddhist, christian, and pagan could sit down and have a friendly discussion about their religions and find some common ground by which friendship, learning, and an exchange of ideas could occur.

Yes, I did list atheism as a religion.

**kimpossible** · 12-14-2005 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

Shouldn't your previous post be applied to your own post?

I was quoting you (quoting someone else, I'm sure. There were entirely too many words strung together in English for it to have been written by you...).

Seeker: I thought the new rules were pretty plain that biblical references belong in Religion/Spirituality - was I wrong in my interpretation of the rules, or was his quoting the King James Bible not a biblical quote? I'm confused...

**Awaken4e1** · 12-14-2005 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Seeker
OK, I'm moving this thread. *However, the main reason I am moving it is not because of Awakens biblical reference, but because this thread has been hijacked and turned into essentially a platform for you guys to attack each other.

I was lamenting the other day to the moderators. *Once upon a time at dreamviews, an atheist, buddhist, christian, and pagan could sit down and have a friendly discussion about their religions and find some common ground by which friendship, learning, and an exchange of ideas could occur. *

Yes, I did list atheism as a religion.

Thank you for you diligence,

I to wish there could be a reasonable discussion on this matter, without the constant lambasting, because of a lack of a substantive response...

**Awaken4e1** · 12-14-2005 07:01 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
I *strongly* object to this thread being in Philosophy. *It specifically makes multiple references to the bible and therefore belongs in \"religion\" per IceDawg's stickeys.

I object!, I object! WWwwwaaaa! I want my way!, give me what I want, Now!, WWwwwaaaa!

Still true to form there 'a' (k)impossible?

We have come to expect nothing less from you...

At lest your consistent...

I think the true reason you have reply in this way is because see yourself in these words, and it convicted you.

We got you number...

Thread: Behavioral Pathologies of past, and modern mind-sets

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Behavioral Pathologies of past, and modern mind-sets

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions